Lets Get More Clear About Managing the Amount of Social Control

Lets Get More Clear About Managing the Amount of Social Control

Jim Masters

Sep 2004

The social values of individual liberty and economic freedom that are the bedrock of American and other societies appear to have a powerful pull for much of the human race. Nations that either voluntarily or involuntarily used other systems are adopting more and more of the tenants of the “free society.”

The rhetoric in America about the opportunity for a person to pursue their self-interest and the desirability of an absence of constraints on those who exercise their options sometimes confuses desired procedures with assured outcomes. Many who try will fail. Some who fail will not try again.

The role of institutions that mediate between an individual and the rest of society is well documented. The family, churches, block clubs, service organizations, voluntary association of all types give examples of people. Whether from altruism, religious motivation or enlightened self-interest helping others. They are the nongovernmental safety net, stabilizing, helping, and structuring a positive path.

There are also professions that help. The ministers, social workers, mental health workers, parole officers, police, detached street workers, teachers, and counselors of all stripes are out there working, from a desire to help others, to pay the rent, or some admixture of motives.

Hundreds of types of publicly and privately funded social programs operating through tens of thousands of agencies provide social services to people in need. Services are defined in terms of the characteristics of the participants in the program, the motives of the workers or participants, the desired objectives of the services, the reasons why the person is perceived to need the service.

There is one key element missing from all the descriptions of social service programs. The social control purposes and methods are submerged under the virtue of the mission and the technology of practice. The failure to recognize the dimension of social control obscures key differences among programs. What masquerades as two totally different types of programs are in effect performing the same exact function – in slightly different settings using marginally different techniques.

Parents knock on the teenager’s door to get them up for school. The teacher both inspires and chastises and to keep the student focused on the material. The coach leads and meets out penalties to teach people the rules and whip the team into shape. In some homes limits are placed on use of the TV, phone and car to carve out enough time to do homework. Exuberance or arrogance spill over the edge of the law, and the police officer and judge are involved. In some parts of the country, the miscreant is offered “the choice” – to enlist in the military service or go off to the slammer. I grew up in Kansas City and this system produced two fine recruits for the Marine Corps from my block alone.

Depending on the state, the notions of individual freedom begin ratcheting people out into the arena of personal responsibility at ages 16, or 18, or 21. The system backs away to maximize the freedom of the individual. All well and good for a substantial percentage of the population. The idea that this is desirable and feasible for 100% of the population is demonstrably false. The notion that the need for social control mechanisms stop for all people at some age is ridiculous.

I want to offer the twin propositions that (a) most people need no social control mechanisms, (b) some do. Those that do may need occasional dip, as a safety stopover, to refresh their memories or to learn or practice new behaviors.. (c) Some may need this for a short time, others permanently.

In short there are varying needs for social control among small groups of people. The general assumption is that as people get older they are more able to operate as individuals and to manage their lives. Some never achieve this.

Another patently false assumption is that all programs are temporary, and that after some period of time all participants are supposed to “graduate” and become self-sufficient, etc. I offer an alternative opinion that some people will never become self-sufficient, never be able to live independently, and never function at the level of autonomy of the general population.

Many people would not disagree with the proposition that some adults need structure. We know the examples:

·  The teenager, giving life to the concepts of Brownian Movement and random walk unless a parent, teacher, or other adult helps them find the path.

·  The career army person who functioned perfectly well in the structure of the military service, and fell straight into the gutter upon discharge.

·  The perpetrator, contrite before judge, jury, guard and parole board, and who the minute the authorities’ eyes are shifted away from him is off on another rampage.

·  The addict, clean and sober as long as they are in the program, and off-the-wagon as soon as they are back “in the old neighborhood.”

·  The youth, a diligent and hard worker in the conservation camp, and back into a stolen car a week after they leave.

·  The teenager who is a human being outside their neighborhood, and a diligent member of the underclass when they are back in their colors.

When are we going to figure out that many people who are otherwise dysfunctional can be functioning members of society, as long as they are in a structured setting?

When are we going to stop pretending that the need for this always stops for all people?

When are we going to recognize that different people need different levels of structure ON A PERMANENT BASIS in order to (a) function and (b) not harm themselves or others?

Why can’t we content ourselves as a society with a 95% success rate (an “A” on any test), and make sensible provisions for the other 5%?

I propose that we array all human services programs along the three dimensions of (1) less structure to more structure, (2) voluntary to involuntary, and a time element (3) temporary to permanent. Think of this as a Rubik’s cube, with different programs slotted into different boxes.

If we had a coherent typology that enabled people from the outside to identify the nature of what was inside, my guess is that even among people who need structured settings most would be able to figure out what level of structure they need. Most people could self-sort.

We do not do a good job of managing along this parameter because we do not explicitly recognize its role in program operations. We deny the function of social control exits, because the reality conflicts with social values and myths.

I perceive that we have a massive number of programs at the poles of these three dimensions, e.g.

completely voluntary or court-mandated,

the downtown storefront or the prison,

leave anytime or stay ten years.

We need more options sprinkled along all these continuums. If we had a wider variety of options, we could do a better job of meeting the true needs of people. Resource allocation issues that are now murky would become illuminated. We could provide people with what they really want and need. It would be easier to explain to both taxpayers and to potential users of the systems. Recruitment would be easier because needs could be matched more precisely to interests.

The irony is that we know how to provide highly structured settings that are largely voluntary but that do the job. The Job Corps is one example, the military service is another. Some are half-way houses, some are therapeutic communities and some are communities.

Some approaches are just a temporary stopping point and that is all that is needed. Other people need a permanent community. Organizations that can operate all types of programs abound, like the Delancy Street Foundation, Walden House, Larkin Street Youth Center, and the California Conservation Corps. (These examples are located in San Francisco.)

For those who envision “Big Brother” in the negative sense, I offer the proposition that we in fact already are using this as a dimension of human services, we just deny its importance and obscure its functioning in ways that make it impossible to manage.

By clarifying along this dimension we can also lay to rest the notion that most people are not motivated to live productive lives. The Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan suggests that almost all Americans are motivated. People want to work, care for self and family, to accomplish and achieve. It is the interaction between expectations and opportunities where the breakdowns usually occur. (Cite MOTIVATION).

There are various voices calling for this. Professor Harry Edwards of the University of California at Berkeley calls for moving large numbers of inner-city youth to locations where they can learn and practice nondestructive behaviors. The New York City Urban League calls for using the Job Corps model to relocate many thousands of youth who need to learn new techniques.

We have a unique opportunity. We have people who know how to do what is needed. We have military bases closing left and right. The provision in the McKinney Act that unused military facilities could be used as shelters for the homeless was basically killed by the military. They placed massive restrictions on access and use. With the military vacating entire bases, there should be fewer excuses for blocking the effective use of that property.

These do not have to become behavioral sinks. There may be – at least initially – more undesirable behavior at these locations than in the surrounding population. But over times, as people accommodate to and become socialized into the setting, this should decline.

How much will all this cost? There are conversion and start-up costs, but if it is done on a large enough scale it should enable us to hold or reduce expenditures for other types of services that fiddle around the edges of this central dilemma but do not confront it.